Government and the war in Heaven.

[jbalm]

All this talk of establishing a Zion society is so out of place it is ridiculous. 220 some odd years ago, we were given a Constutional society that was inspired by God. That was based on self-reliance, and respect for the rights of others. That would have been the foundation for a Zion society. Where people, free to do as they choose, freely give of themselves for the benefit of those unable to make it on their own. We blew it. Now we are socialist. The only difference is that some think its ok. Others don't.

But to think that moving from the form of government the U.S. had at its founding to socialism is somehow a step toward a "Zion society" are dead wrong. The opposite is true. Lucifer had a plan in which he proposed that all people would be forced to do what is right. He got the boot for it.

I can tell you in no uncertain terms that Marx, Stalin, Castro, Clinton, Bush, etc., have no intention of leading anyone toward Zion. Yet some espouse their ambitions as righteous.

The ones who left were the ones who were the quitters. They were the ones who saw a problem and left** the others to sort it out. In an army they are called deserters. The ones who stayed behind eventually sorted it out without the help of the quitters.

This statement is absurd on so many levels that I fear you may now have stretch marks on the bodily orifice out of which you pulled it.

It is especially ironic since you have chosen to live outside of England yourself.

[shadow]

I'm suggesting that it's not the role of government to redistribute the wealth. That's all. Don't read more into that than there is.

Well, considering that basically the number one reason for the existence of government is to redistribute the wealth, i'd say you are an anarchist.

Where does our article of faith fit into this...we believe in being subject to....... and render unto caesar......??

See, that's the problem. You're misunderstanding the role of government. The role of government, of we the people, is to make sure that our rights are protected. Rights like private property, life, the pursiut of happiness, and....... the fruits of ones labor. Government or "we the people" have no right to my life. They have no right to the fruits of my labor. They have no right to take my property. Anarchist? Nope. Just a very limited government found in the constitution of the United States.

PS Aussie, I'm just as against the government taking the fruit of my labor to fight a silly war too. Like I've posted so many times, it's the principle. Governemnt has no right to take anything. Government has no rights period. Governemnt has no role in serving the people.

As far as rendering unto caesar, yes, I render. But I don't have to agree with it.

[Moses]

It is especially ironic since you have chosen to live outside of England yourself.

Do you know the circumstances as to why I left? If you did you would not comment like that.

I left England kicking and screaming in my heart.(like many early lds pioneers) As my family left before me, and I put my family ahead of location. My eldest Sister moved with her Husband, which was work related, my younger sister followed, she met an LDS man in NZ, married him and he asked her to settle here. That left Mum dad and myself in Enlgand. Mum missed her grandchildren and her daughters, so they came too. Leaving just me in England , which I love so very much. I decided that I wanted to be near to my aging parents so that I could do what I have always done look after their needs.

Coming here was good in a sense , its a British Commonwealth country very similar in many ways to England.. There is not a week goes by where I don't think of Englands green and pleasant land, my friends, and my extended family. Would I leave England if my family were still there, no sir, I would not. Would I return if my wife and Kids wanted to and my parents were no longer here. Yes sir I would.

[shadow]

I think this thread might have taken a detour from principles. That's all I wanted to discuss when I started it. I was curious about the war in Heaven and it's continuance here on earth, especially pertaining to government. I think we've gotten a little bit off track. To that, I apologize.

[Moses]

PS Aussie, I'm just as against the government taking the fruit of my labor to fight a silly war too. Like I've posted so many times, it's the principle. Governemnt has no right to take anything. Government has no rights period. Governemnt has no role in serving the people.

What you say is another oxymoron.....

Government has no right to take the fruits of your labour. well who is the Government? Government, for and by the people..... Who are you? one of the people, so you are a part of the government in a sense. its just that there are people in an official government administration who act on your behalf. Now. So if the Representitives of the people decide to tax you ,( you gave them the mandate) then it is you who are taxing yourself in the bigger picture.

You dont go to the grocery store and just walk out with your food without paying for it. Because that is an expense on you, its a commodity in exchange for a consideration, in this case your dollar.

It is no different to living in a highly advanced society where it costs a lot to have such an infra structure and to maintain it. There are many costs that we dont see. Someone has to pay for them. If the cost is spread over the entire nation, it makes a very small burden for everyone, instead of a huge one for a few.

It is one of those neccessary inconveniences.That we all must have in exchange for a great place to live. Talking about stretch marks for inventive logic. The opposition to taxation for any reason is both naive and backward thinking. The world in 1700 is nothing like it is today and The rules that were written in the days of the founding fathers, cannot all apply unaltered in perpetuary . The FF knew things would alter, thats why they left provisions for amendments.

Wasn't the main complaint at the Boston Tea party, No taxation without representation, well you now have the representation, and you have taxation.

It is not meet that we are commanded in all things. We have the right, no, duty to work things out in this world for the good of mankind. I know I will never convince you, but Welfare (unabused is very much pleasing to God) provided the reciprient is grateful and does all he or she can to get back on their feet as soon as possible.

[shadow]

I know I will never convince you, but Welfare (unabused is very much pleasing to God) provided the reciprient is grateful and does all he or she can to get back on their feet as soon as possible.

I'm already convinced of that. Not only that but I believe in welfare to those who aren't grateful and who won't do all he/she can to get back on their feet.

So how is this welfare to be provided unabused?? (if unabused is pleasing to God, abused wouldn't be) Through the government? Not ours. Ours abuses. One big abuse is forcing the giver to give. Of course that really gives the word welfare a new definition. I won't even go into how the war is funded and justified. We're told it's for our own protection, a form of welfare.

As far as the "we the people" stuff. "We the people" can only do so much. We can't infringe upon the rights of others. (At least that's how our government was originally set up). The fruits of ones labor is his right. "We the people" have no right to it. Too many people don't understand the "we the people" thing.

The constitution was set up be God. Anything more or less is evil. So yes Moses, it can apply unaltered perpetually. Too bad it hasn't though.

Back to the war in Heaven... wasn't it Lucifer that wanted to force what was best for the children of God? Now Aussie thinks it was just a glory thing. It wasn't. It was agency. Now you might think that you and a majority of people can use your agency to force someone to do something, like pay income tax, but what you and your majority have just done is limited that other persons agency by forcing him to pay.

[Proud 2b Peculiar]

Moses 4: 3
3 Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;

[Army Of Truth]

Moses, that is why God set up the Constitution through men whom He appointed. He knew that men in power, particularly our federal government, shouldn't be the ones taking money from the "haves" and giving it to the "have nots". Unfortunately our current oligarchy is indeed abusing our welfare state and most recipients do not use welfare to get back on their feet asap.

Remember what the Lord said to Joseph Smith in D&C 121:39:

"We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion." Notice that He didn't say "some men" or even "many men" but "almost ALL men". If I were to guess a percentage, I would put that at around 99%.

As for taxes, President Benson showed how taxes were used in the fall of Rome:

"Reasons for the fall of Rome:

1. Undermining of the sanctity of the home.
2. Higher and higher taxes for free bread and circuses for the people.
3. Mad craze for pleasure, sports becoming more and more exciting and brutal.
4. Building of gigantic armaments when the real enemy was the decadence of the people.
5. Decay of religion - faith fading into mere form and becoming impotent to warn and guide the people." - Ezra Taft Benson quoting Edward Gibbons - CR Apr 1973

Then more recently, our late prophet Gordon B. Hinckley showed how the 2 great civilizations in the BoM were wiped out and that taxes were a big part of controlling them as "The people succumbed to the wiles of ambitious and scheming leaders who oppressed them with burdensome taxes, who lulled them with hollow promises...". Here is the full quote:

"The Book of Mormon narrative is a chronicle of nations long since gone. But in its descriptions of the problems of today's society, it is as current as the morning newspaper and much more definitive, inspired, and inspiring concerning the solutions of those problems.

I know of no other writing which sets forth with such clarity the tragic consequences to societies that follow courses contrary to the commandments of God. Its pages trace the stories of two distinct civilizations that flourished on the Western Hemisphere. Each began as a small nation, its people walking in the fear of the Lord. But with prosperity came growing evils. The people succumbed to the wiles of ambitious and scheming leaders who oppressed them with burdensome taxes, who lulled them with hollow promises, who countenanced and even encouraged loose and lascivious living. These evil schemers led the people into terrible wars that resulted in the death of millions and the final and total extinction of two great civilizations in two different eras.

No other written testament so clearly illustrates the fact that when men and nations walk in the fear of God and in obedience to His commandments, they prosper and grow, but when they disregard Him and His word, there comes a decay that, unless arrested by righteousness, leads to impotence and death. The Book of Mormon is an affirmation of the Old Testament proverb: "Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people"" (Proverbs 14:34). - Gordon B. Hinckley, “A Testimony Vibrant and True,” Ensign, August 2005

"Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies and debts and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." – James Madison, 1795

[Moses]

Moses 4: 3
3 Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;

[Proud 2b Peculiar]

Moses 4: 3
3 Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;

[Moses]

Moses 4: 3
3 Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;

I read this as satan wanted Gods power. then God says by the power of mine only begotten I caused that he should be cast down. you have to seperate that I should give unto him mine own powerandby the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down; He wanted the power, and because of this he caused that Jesus cast him out.

Imagine suggesting we ought to be forced to do accept the gospel, that sounds like it could be a genuine but unwise desire to do good that an explanation from a wise person would cause lucifer to re think, but what made it sinister was he wanted the the power for himself........Today we have people who aspire to great callings and desire power. to me this is the thing that caused him to be cast out. He wanted to be God in effect.

This what rebellion is, its an attempt to overthrow the authority, whether it be of a government a company or a country. AGENCY WAS THE ISSUE but the desire to take over was the sin. So his sin was two fold, he wanted to have power and with that power he wanted to control mankind so they have no decisions to make. in effect, be prisoners.

[jbalm]

Imagine suggesting we ought to be forced to do accept the gospel, that sounds like a genuine desire to do good, but what made it sinister was he wanted the the power for himself...AGENCY WAS THE ISSUE but the desire to take over was the sin.

Agency was certainly the issue, and the attempt to take away the agency of man (unrighteous dominion) and thwart God's plan was the sin.

And to suggest that forcing anyone to accept the gospel stems from a desire to do good goes against the very foundation of church doctrine.

From Helaman 14:

30 And now remember, remember, my brethren, that whosoever perisheth, perisheth unto himself; and whosoever doeth iniquity, doeth it unto himself; for behold, ye are free; ye are permitted to act for yourselves; for behold, God hath given unto you a knowledge and he hath made you free.
31 He hath given unto you that ye might know good from evil, and he hath given unto you that ye might choose life or death; and ye can do good and be restored unto that which is good, or have that which is good restored unto you; or ye can do evil, and have that which is evil restored unto you.

From D&C 58:

26 For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.
27 Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;
28 For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward.

From 2 Nephi 2:

16 Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.

and

26 And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.
27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and call things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.

From Alma 12:

31 Wherefore, he gave commandments unto men, they having first transgressed the first commandments as to things which were temporal, and becoming as Gods, knowing good from evil, placing themselves in a state to act, or being placed in a state to act according to their wills and pleasures, whether to do evil or to do good—

This is just a fraction of the verses that make this point.

Without freedom, our mortal lives are a waste of time.

[Moses]

Imagine suggesting we ought to be forced to do accept the gospel, that sounds like it could be a genuine but unwise desire to do good that an explanation from a wise person would cause lucifer to re think, but what made it sinister was he wanted the the power for himself........Today we have people who aspire to great callings and desire power. to me this is the thing that caused him to be cast out. He wanted to be God in effect

Explaining to you is very tiresome. I didnt say that it was a desire to do good, I said one might think that it was a misguided desire to acheive a good result, no one lost, I do believe that if no one were lost it would be great:)(before you jump down my throat i mean by voluntary means) But no I meant that had he been just trying to help, he would have had it explained to him that it wasnt a good idea.

What I am saying , is that it was the fact he desired to take God's power and in a way be God himself that was the real sin. Rebellion in other words, Mutiny or whatever you want to call it.

I can be in a meeting and suggest something to bishop that is wrong, he would explain to me why and we would move on. Satan wasn't like that I know, he was evil . he would have argued with the Bishop and tried to get his idea through no matter what.

We agree actually, Im just not sure you understand the relevance of trying to take over God's power?

[shadow]

Satan was a liar from the beginning D&C 93:25. He never could take Gods glory. It was impossible. As soon as he were to take away the agency of man he would have ceased to be God (No glory). D&C 130:20-21 explains that from before the foundation of this world there was a law irrevocably decreed (can't be changed) in heaven which all blessings are predicated. What are they predicated on? Being obedient to the law. How can you be obedient without agency? You can't. It was a flawed plan from the beginning. There could not have been any glory. There is no glory in force. No one would have been saved under Lucifer's plan. That's the great lie. That war is continued on earth. We're fighting it right now. Agency or force. One is flawed 100%. Guess which one????

[Moses]

Hey mate, your arguing with yourself.

Satan did seek to take the glory upon himself. I didnt say he succeeded.


Agency versus force.

Agency is winning. Free elections, majority 'deciding' not 'forced' to vote one way or the other, the winner the winner having mandate to govern . By voting, you are accepting that you may win or may lose. and hope you have the good grace to accept losing as a part of life. If you dont accept the majority decision then why bother to vote?

The battle today is in how we use our agency not if we have it, we already have agency. it cant be lost except if we give it away by making decisions that create habits, that then enslave us. No third party can take away your agency. Its not about Governments its closer to home than that.

[shadow]

No wonder why I have a headache!

I was just saying that Satan wasn't thrown out of heaven because he wanted glory. I thought you were suggesting it was a glory thing, not an agency thing. By default that would mean that the war in heaven which has continued on earth is about glory, not agency.

My bad!

[Moses]

Moses was prevented from entering in the promised land just because he didnt give God the glory or something like that.

He is a Jealous God. and Idolatry is the biggest sin. Thou shalt have no other Gods before me.

Satan wanted to destroy our agency , you are right . but I am saying that he wanted us to bow down to him and not God. The greatest sin...... But both very bad.

Im sorry if im also hard work, and also have headache hahaha Im LDS and accept the same things, I just have a propensity to be a pain in the neck

[shadow]

Im sorry if im also hard work, and also have headache hahaha Im LDS and accept the same things, I just have a propensity to be a pain in the neck

My headache came from arguing with myself.
Honestly, we're all pains in the neck.

[jbalm]

Agency is winning. Free elections, majority 'deciding' not 'forced' to vote one way or the other, the winner the winner having mandate to govern . By voting, you are accepting that you may win or may lose. and hope you have the good grace to accept losing as a part of life. If you dont accept the majority decision then why bother to vote?

Absolutely incorrect.

By your logic, German jews acquiesced to the Holocaust because Adolf Hitler was elected.

By voting you are trying to influence the outcome of the election. By no means is every voter condoning the result. Actually, the opposite is true.

[a-train]

If we indeed are expected to rended unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, then are we not also expected to render unto every man that which is his?

What do we think the Saviour would have said to Caesar? Something contrary? Would He have told Caesar that he need not render unto men that which is theirs and unto God that which is His?

The question is whether or not we believe that we or any group of us, be it a governmental one or otherwise, should make attempts to 'take over God's power' in providing for the temporal needs of His children over which we have no stewardship.

It is certain that Satan wanted control over man and his economy in order that not one shall be lost. What difference is their between him and his designs and those of us who desire to take control of man and his economy in order that not one will starve, or go without shelter, or without health services? Does it matter whether we desire the temporal or spiritual welfare of man? Do not the same principles apply in the provision of both?

The LORD did not call upon the powers of government to constrain the young man to sell all he had and follow Him. The agency of the man was given Him, and no penalty of man's law was called for by the Saviour in light the man's inability to conquer his love for his many possessions.

The proper role of government is not in the realm of compulsary welfarism any more than it is in the realm of compulsary moralism or compulsary devotion to God.

No matter the level of Priesthood authority a man holds, it does not possess any compulsary power. And if indeed I am not authorized to be such a compulsive power in the world, I see no reason to believe that any group of men having the same absence of power constitute such.

-a-train

[natasha]

Good grief, Charlie Brown....you misunderstood my intent completely regarding "being prepared". PERSONAL preparation would have gone a very long way those few days after Katrina. It's my understanding that to begin with, private organizations came through in a big way....and I don't consider them "socialists"....so I'm confused at your label. People helping people has nothing to do with socialism. It's a human condition that should snap into gear when there is trouble and people needing help. I lived in the Panhandle of Florida for 19 years. I experienced several hurricane seasons....some where we were asked to evacuate in plenty of time. Have you noticed that in the past several years that EVEN the government has been pushing PERSONAL preparedness. I didn't say it was the ONLY kind of assistance people should be able to count on in a situation like Katrina. Nothing would have stopped the destruction....but a little common sense would have gone a long way in preventing people being stranded on rooftops. Did you recall seeing how many school buses sat unused when they could have hauled a lot of people away from the really dangerous areas. To me, that was more a problem of local and State government who's very proximity gave them an edge up on being one of the first responders.

[shadow]

Notice how I added the blue words.

one might think that it was a misguided desire to acheive a good result (like health care), no one lost (without health care), I do believe that if no one were lost (without health care) it would be great:)(before you jump down my throat i mean by voluntary means) But no I meant that had he been just trying to help, he would have had it explained to him that it wasnt a good idea.

So you do believe in agency and correct principles!! Good for you Moses! All it took was a little explaining. You can change out the word lost with anything and the principle is still the same. I like how you suggested that if he really was just trying to help he would have had it explained to him that it wasn't a good idea. Now please tell us why it wasn't a good idea. I believe you already answered that by saying it would have to be by "voluntary means". To that I agree. Does a majority rule make it voluntary? Nope. So theres your answer regarding what government should be allowed to do. Principles govern.

Force vs. agency.

[Moses]

Okay.

Here we have the crux of the matter.

If less than 100% want to do something, say 80%do and 20% dont. going by what you have just said, then you dont do it. because 20% didnt want to do it.

Fair enough, so since there is no vaccuum, and you have to go one way or the other, the 20% have their way. They are no doubt relieved that they werent forced into a path that they did not want.

But wait, what about the 80%? they now feel that not only have they not got their wishes. but this paltry 20% has got their way.

You have a dillemma . The problem is unsolveable.

This is why majority rule came in, as a general rule it is more fair that the more part get their wishes, than the lesser part.

I qualify this by saying there also has to be checks and balances to avoid extreme government that infringes on life and limb. and anything that is going to hurt any group.

[shadow]

No amount of people have a right to infringe upon another, or FORCE another. Even if the odds are an infinite to 1. You'd still be forcing the one. Here's the thing Moses, All those people, the 80%, or 99.9999...% for that matter, don't have a right to do anything that violates the rights of 1 person. So your example is flawed. The 20% are not infringing upon the right of the 80% Why? Because the 80% don't have that right in the first place. They have wants and desires, you called them "wishes", but not a right. There's a huge difference. No dilemma

[Army Of Truth]

Okay.

Here we have the crux of the matter.

If less than 100% want to do something, say 80%do and 20% dont. going by what you have just said, then you dont do it. because 20% didnt want to do it.

Fair enough, so since there is no vaccuum, and you have to go one way or the other, the 20% have their way. They are no doubt relieved that they werent forced into a path that they did not want.

But wait, what about the 80%? they now feel that not only have they not got their wishes. but this paltry 20% has got their way.

You have a dillemma . The problem is unsolveable.

This is why majority rule came in, as a general rule it is more fair that the more part get their wishes, than the lesser part.

I qualify this by saying there also has to be checks and balances to avoid extreme government that infringes on life and limb. and anything that is going to hurt any group.

This "dillemma" is called a democracy. That is why the founding fathers loathed a democracy and instead instituted a constitutional Republic. When you mention there has to be "checks and balances", that is what differentiates a democracy from a Republic. A Republic is a democracy with a Rule of Law that cannot be infringed, such as a person's right to life, liberty, or property. A pure democracy is what leads to socialism and communism. Pure democracy is when 51% of the people can vote away the rights (ie. property, life, etc.) of the other 49%. This is what leads to mob rule.

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” – Thomas Jefferson

“Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.” – John Adams

“Tyranny naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme form of liberty.” – Plato, 400 B.C., The Republic, VIII

"Democracy is indispensable to socialism." – Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

"Democracy is the road to Socialism." – Karl Marx